Mathew Hayden vs Virender Sehwag

[Dawood Ahmad]

Mathew Hayden is a better batsman than Sehvag.

 

[Red]

I don't think so. I rate them both evenly really. Both great openers with some limitations against quality pace bowling units without reprieve.

 

[Dan]

Virender Sehwag is a better batsman than Hayden.

 

[Red]

I hated watching Hayden bat for some reason. Just really didn't enjoy his style. Preferred to watch Langer.

 

[kyear2]

If pushed I would prefer Hayden over Sehwag.

 

[simonlee48]

Sehwag was slightly better in my opinion.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

I don't think so. I rate them both evenly really. Both great openers with some limitations against quality pace bowling units without reprieve.

Explain which limitations.

Virender Sehwag is a better batsman than Hayden.

Give some arguments, I would oppose you.

 

[Dan]

Give some arguments, I would oppose you.

Why is Hayden better, then? You've made the assertion in the OP, you should back it up before I counter it.

 

[harsh.ag]

Give some arguments, I would oppose you.

This statement really shows that your mind is completely made up on this. Then why would you like to argue? I only argue when my mind is not made up.

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

This statement really shows that your mind is completely made up on this. Then why would you like to argue? I only argue when my mind is not made up.

If my mind wouldn't be made up, I won't open the forum, I just said that because either I will have to put details on thread which takes time or I would have to keep arguing to clarify things.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Both had limitations in certain conditions , Sehwag more so. But when the conditions were in his favour and he was in the zone, the opposition can pretty much just throw in the towel. Both really underrated imo.

 

[harsh.ag]

I agree with Sehwag having more limitations than Hayden.

Both were great in the sub-continent too.

Difficult question. Probably go with Hayden on this. I think he was a slightly better team player than Viru (I mean to say something in the region of "Hayden played the situation better than Sehwag).

 

[Dawood Ahmad]

Why is Hayden better, then? You've made the assertion in the OP, you should back it up before I counter it.

its ok I start,
Hayden's mental powers overwhelms Sehwag's ability to think.
Hayden is a better builder of innings.
Hayden is harder striker of the ball.
Hayden has more pressure over bowlers.
Hayden wins more matches than Sehwag at all levels.
Hayden times better than Sehwag with abetter movement, speed and work of feet.
Hayden plays both better front foot and back foot than Sehwag.
Hayden is much more relied by team than Sehwag.
Hayden has much more balls out the middle of the bat than Sehwag.
Hayden rotates the strike more than Sehwag.
Hayden is better player of spin than Sehwag.
Hayden defeated the the legendary bowlers of his time more than Sehwag.
Hayden was more consistent than Sehwag.
Hayden was more constant than Sehwag.
And if you want more, tell me. I am waiting to know how you counter.

 

[Jassy]

Hayden has much more balls out the middle than Sehwag

ITSTL

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Sehwag in form was unstoppable, but i would back Hayden to score more consistently against any bowlers in any conditions.

 

[Dan]

Going full Richard with the broken-up quote here.

its ok I start,
Hayden's mental powers overwhelms Sehwag's ability to think.

I don't think there's a huge amount of difference here tbh. Sehwag is nowhere near as dumb (nor Hayden as smart) as you seem to give them credit for. That being said, Sehwag has a greater tendency to be irresponsible in shot selection, yes.

Hayden is a better builder of innings.

Yep, probably. No argument there; Hayden's a better accumulator

Hayden is harder striker of the ball.

Nah, gotta disagree here. Sehwag hits the ball ****ing hard. Hayden was huge, but Sehwag struck harder.

Hayden has more pressure over bowlers.

I think bowlers would equally dread bowling at Hayden or Sehwag; depending on conditions either might be the scarier prospect.

i
Hayden wins more matches than Sehwag at all levels.

Hard to quantify this. Sehwag has played some amazing knocks, as as Hayden. But both have also cashed in against weak opposition or made big runs unnecessarily.

Hayden times better than Sehwag with abetter movement, speed and work of feet.

Yep, Sehwag's footwork is a whole other level of sucky, even compared to Matthew Hayden's.

Hayden plays both better front foot and back foot than Sehwag.

Ok, I get the footwork point.

Hayden is much more relied by team than Sehwag.

Neither really were relied upon by their teams -- Hayden supported by Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Waugh, Clarke, Hussey, Gilchrist et al during his career, Sehwag by Gambhir, Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Kohli etc. Both could afford to be the players they were due to the support they had in the team.

Hayden has much more balls out the middle of the bat than Sehwag.

This seems, umm, rather hard to quantify or prove.

Hayden rotates the strike more than Sehwag.

No argument from me.

Hayden is better player of spin than Sehwag.

Nah, Sehwag has monstered some pretty darn good spinners on some tracks that were pretty receptive to turn. Hayden was by no means bad -- his India tour in '01 was pretty immense, actually (and the first ever double ton that I'd heard of), but Sehwag is a spinners' nightmare.

Hayden defeated the the legendary bowlers of his time more than Sehwag.

Sehwag has played some seriously good knocks against seriously good bowling attacks. Generally with the help of conditions, yes, but Hayden wasn't renowned for his ability to handle quality pace in swinging and seaming conditions either.

Hayden was more consistent than Sehwag.

Not too sure about this one tbh. Happy to concede, but it's pretty close I guess.

Hayden was more constant than Sehwag.

?


Essentially, while you'd take Hayden on greentops as a lesser of two useless shunts, Sehwag had the higher peaks when conditions suited. He was an absolute monster at home. Hayden had the imposing presence; Sehwag had the destruction and hand-eye coordination to make any bowler scared for their average (and possibly their teeth).

Hayden is more well-rounded, but Sehwag's peaks were just so good that Hayden's consistency doesn't do enough to outweigh Sehwag's weaknesses IMO. It's very, very close though.

 

[silentstriker]

Hayden was great vs spin but Sehwag was as good as Tendulkar against spin. He wasn't an opener by trade - he preferred to bat at five or six and throughout his career, he wanted to be moved down if a spot opened up.

 

[silentstriker]

I still picked Hayden though, as better overall.

 

[fredfertang]

They were both distinctly ordinary in England - prefer Ed Cowan myself

 

[Salamuddin]

Hayden was actually quite an ordinary batsman away from the true wickets of Australia. Only average mid thirties or lower in nz, South Africa and England. Further, re his record in india, he was only really good in that series in 2001 whee he faced an under strength indian attack (no Kumble no srinath for two tests. On his subsequent tours to india where he faced better attacks, he averaged sub 40 both times.